Poll: The Problems in the Church Today are Due Mainly to: (Please read OP for details)
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
66
0%
0 0%
13
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
3
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Crisis: Where Does the Blame Lie?
#91
(10-15-2012, 01:52 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 01:41 PM)m.PR Wrote:
(10-14-2012, 06:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think it is highly unlikely that most of the Council fathers were deliberately planting ambiguities to use later with liberal interpretations.  If they were mostly liberal, they could have written unambiguously liberal documents in the first place. 

Not that I disagree with you, but let's keep in mind that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. If all of the Council Fathers had been raging liberals, the very best they could have done would be ambiguous documents, because God would have stopped from doing anything worse. So the ambiguity of the documents is not necessarily proof that the bishops were not liberals.

I disagree with some of your word choice (liberals), but this approach works both ways, so to speak. If a document is full of ambiguities and errors, it cannot be of the Holy Ghost.

Remember, Church=Pillar and ground of truth. She is incapable of giving error.

I will agree with "If a document is full of ... errors, it cannot be of the Holy Ghost." This is simple truth: the Church cannot teach error.

I disagree with "If a document is full of ambiguities..." The protection afforded by the Holy Spirit is relatively narrow: the Church will not formally teach error. There is no guarantee that the Church will, in any given time period, teach what is true particularly clearly or particularly well. We were never promised that we would have good teachers, only that we would have correct ones.
Reply
#92
After four days, the results of the poll don't really bear the narrative of a 'neo-Catholic infiltration.'
Reply
#93
I concur, but there is nothing ambiguous with declaring religious liberty a "civil right."
Reply
#94
(10-16-2012, 05:10 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I concur, but there is nothing ambiguous with declaring religious liberty a "civil right."

As I said over in the thread on DH (which I think I linked here), properly understood, there is nothing wrong with this evaluation.
Reply
#95
sw85,

Sorry.  I forgot about this thread.  You do a competent job of defending DH in the link you gave me, although I would remind you again that the ambiguity itself is not Catholic.  That aside, the issue brought up in Geremia's thread was not what I had in mind when I was talking about being self evidently wrong and not Catholic.  Please see this: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...939.0.html
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#96
(10-16-2012, 08:31 PM)sw85 Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 05:10 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I concur, but there is nothing ambiguous with declaring religious liberty a "civil right."

As I said over in the thread on DH (which I think I linked here), properly understood, there is nothing wrong with this evaluation.

I recommend this article: http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/t...iberty.htm

I do not agree with the author in saying DH can be reconciled. Also, even if I were to cede that point, as the author notes, none of the hierarchy adheres to his theory, making it a moot point.
Reply
#97
(10-16-2012, 08:35 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: sw85,

Sorry.  I forgot about this thread.  You do a competent job of defending DH in the link you gave me, although I would remind you again that the ambiguity itself is not Catholic.  That aside, the issue brought up in Geremia's thread was not what I had in mind when I was talking about being self evidently wrong and not Catholic.  Please see this: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...939.0.html

I will check that out, thanks. But please don't think I'm "defending DH." I think it's a wretchedly written document and the nonsense it has produced is a perfectly predictable consequence of its terrible, awkward style. Strictly speaking I'm still unsure of what it says and acknowledge my analysis could be wrong. All I'm trying to do is show that the claim that there is no possible way to reconcile DH with the traditional Magisterium is false. And if it's false, then we are wrong to adopt the strategy of our enemies by declaring VII to be definitively divergent from Church teachings.

(10-16-2012, 08:47 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 08:31 PM)sw85 Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 05:10 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I concur, but there is nothing ambiguous with declaring religious liberty a "civil right."

As I said over in the thread on DH (which I think I linked here), properly understood, there is nothing wrong with this evaluation.

I recommend this article: http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/t...iberty.htm

I do not agree with the author in saying DH can be reconciled. Also, even if I were to cede that point, as the author notes, none of the hierarchy adheres to his theory, making it a moot point.

I will check that out, as well.

Of course whether or not the hierarchy is treacherous is a side point. We never had a guarantee that our shepherds would be men of good faith. Our sole guarantee was not that they would never do evil, but that they would never (formally) teach evil.
Reply
#98
(10-16-2012, 05:08 PM)Cordobes Wrote: After four days, the results of the poll don't really bear the narrative of a 'neo-Catholic infiltration.'

Once again, it isn't "neo-Catholic"  to think the documents might be able to be read such that they are consistent with Tradition. What makes a trad a trad is the traditional Faith. If someone thinks that the 16 documents in their original language, which most folks here haven't even read, might possibly not contradict anything that, say, Pope St. Pius X believed, and if that person believes the same Faith that Pope St. Pius X believed and at least fully desires to worship the same way, wants a restoration of the TLM, etc., then that person is a trad, not a "neo-Catholic." What makes a trad isn't his "opinion on Vatican II's documents"; it's the Faith -- whether he holds it in spite of how he sees Vatican II's documents or while believing the documents might very well be OK if read correctly or if he's never even heard of Vatican II. My paternal great-grandparents were "trads" -- and they, while on earth, anyway, never heard of Vatican II, I assure you. They were dead when it happened.

The ideas that a trad must think the documents of Vatican II are in error (as opposed to expressing ignorance or thinking they have been misinterpreted, badly written, etc.) and that he must support the SSPX (as in having no qualms about jurisdiction, etc.) have got to go. Obviously some trads do think the documents are in error and do support the SSPX (fine and good), but some who do have a real nasty attitude toward those who don't.

Man, I'd be happy if I never heard the words "Vatican II" again.

--  For that matter, I'd be happy if I never heard these words again, either:  neo-Catholic, libtard, right-wing-nutter, Nervous Disorder, tinfoil hatter, sods, capital-T The capital-J Jews, feminazi, postconciliar Church, anti-semite -- I could go on for a long time, but I'm talking about language that's designed to do nothing but insult or express bitterness rather than fix anything or change people's minds.

Sorry for the rant :P
Reply
#99
I agree with you Vox ... did you read my post as arguing otherwise?

I meant to say that I think the poll shows that the forum has not "changed in character" or become hostile to those who find faults in the the actual documents of VII. While I voted for the first option in this poll, I am not strongly committed either way, and have never in my life attended an "irregular" mass or liturgy, though mostly due to their nonexistence in my area.

My apologies if you took my post to have some other meaning. 
Reply
(10-17-2012, 11:54 AM)Cordobes Wrote: I agree with you Vox ... did you read my post as arguing otherwise?

I meant to say that I think the poll shows that the forum has not "changed in character" or become hostile to those who find faults in the the actual documents of VII. While I voted for the first option in this poll, I am not strongly committed either way, and have never in my life attended an "irregular" mass or liturgy, though mostly due to their nonexistence in my area.

My apologies if you took my post to have some other meaning. 

I'm sorry if I read you wrong :(  It's just a pet peeve of mine lately so I jumped. Mea culpa!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)